There is a new comment on the post "The self-contradictions of Marc Morano".
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2501
Author: ScruffyDan
Comment:
@ Andrew
Finally we are getting somewhere. Thanks for citing some sources. But before I comment on them, I want to comment on some of the things you said.
<blockquote>First off, your link claiming there is challenge to the consensus is bizarre on the face of it.</blockquote>
Not sure which link you are referring to, so I can't explain why I posted it. Let me know which link you are referring to and I will explain why it is here.
<blockquote>Any science field I’ve worked with relishes a debate</blockquote>
It depends on what you mean by debate. Scientists are far to busy to debate every single dissenting theory that pops up on the Internet. The ones that have obvious errors are usually simply ignored. Scientists also tend to ignore people who aren't interested in honest debate.
A good example of both of these points is found in the evolution/creationism sphere. Scientists are dead set against the 'teach the controversy' program, and with good reason. They also don't answer creationists calls for debate, or bother debunking their absurdities.
The same holds true for climate science.
In short, scientists welcome scientific debate, and serious challenges to their work (which typically means passing the minimum standard of peer-review). They don't usually delve into crackpot territory.
<blockquote>[AGW proponents] conduct an elaborate contortion to dismiss the argument on any and all grounds with the frequent exception of one – countering it on scientific grounds.</blockquote>
Have you read my responses to Bob? Or even my response to you regarding ocean heat content? I'd say that was more than a mere dismissal of your argument.
But it actually doesn't matter. Neither of us are experts in the field of climate science, and what ever the outcome of this discussion it wont speak to the accrual science.
If you want a scientific discussion go read the peer-reviewed literature, the fact that non-experts aren't debunking your points doesn't mean they haven't been addressed by the experts.
<blockquote>when its beyond obvious that 99.99% of plants perform better with higher CO2 levels.</blockquote>
Source please? From now on I am simply going to delete any claims such as these that aren't backed up by research.
And just in case you wanted more evidence that the situation between CO2 and plant productivity is anything but clear check this out:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vFGU6qvkmTI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vFGU6qvkmTI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<blockquote>I mean there probably is some reason commercial greenhouses pump the stuff [CO2] in. </blockquote>
Yes there is, but I see you haven't yet read Liebig's law of the minimum. It explains rather clearly why extra CO2 wont help many plants grow.
Next time you repeat yourself without addressing my points on the matter, I am going to delete that portion of your comment. I grow tired of you ignoring the counter points I raise.
<blockquote>You have choosen to link to a chapter of the latest IPCC report - to me this is like someone being challenged on their pro-capital punishment views and simply responding by passing the other party a bible to flip through.</blockquote>
And yet every single scientific organization (I linked to several above) either explicitly or implicitly agrees with its conclusions... but it is much more fun to compare this scientific document to to the bible.
<blockquote>[I] found it to be more of a policy document rather than a scientific document</blockquote>
Really? A policy document? You are going to have to point out which parts were policy focused, because to me the chapter I linked to, has no policy aspect to it. Just science.
As for the parts that didn't have enough detail for you, go read the literature cited, that one reason they cite their sources. The other reason is so you can check up on them, and to make sure they didn't take the original research out of context.
<blockquote>Should we start with papers on the medieval warm period that many in the AGW camp have simply willed away?</blockquote>
Oooooo, will this include a rant on the hickey stick! I hope so! And I wonder what those papers say about what the MWP means to present day warming. Does it somehow change the radiative properties of CO2?
<blockquote>The influence of clouds and if they are captured in albedo?</blockquote>
hmm, this sounds like the iris hypothesis. Great!
<blockquote>What level of forcing is generated by CO2 in the atmosphere?</blockquote>
Only if I can cite some recent papers that try to estimate earth system sensitivity (vs the more limited Charney sensitivity)!
<blockquote>The list is legion.</blockquote>
Great, so where is it? All I see are three links. The first and last of which are not peer-reviewed.
The first comes from <em>European Science and Environment Forum</em>. While that sounds like a respected scientific organization, it is nothing of the sort. Amongst the groups accomplishments is trying to deny the CFC ozone link, not to mention their interesting relationship with tobacco.
SourceWatch sums it up nicely: "<em>Like other "sound science" front groups, its real mission is to disparage the science upon which environmental safety regulations are based, and it was initially a creation of the tobacco industry, which promoted the idea of "junk science" and overregulation.</em>"
Not exactly a reputable source.
The last link is just a email discussion. Sure such discussions are very helpful, but they aren't peer-reviewed. Since I don't have the time (and likely the expertise required) to evaluate all the claims made (which differ wildly from the established understanding) in these documents, and since I explicitly asked for articles that meet the minimum standard of peer-review, I am going to dismiss them.
As for the second link, again it differs wildly from the established understanding, which of course this doesn't mean it is wrong, but there are a a couple of red flags that immediately pop up. First that author's expertise is mechanical engineering focusing is in the area of combustion. Not exactly the expertise one would expect. The other red flag is where it is published. Yes <em>Energy Fuels</em> is a respected peer-reviewed journal (as far as I can tell anyways), but it isn't the place one would expect where discussions of the properties of atmospheric gases would take place.
Still, none of these red flags means the paper is invalid. But it was recently published and as John Mashey reminds us: "<em>The publication cycle of the most credible peer-reviewed journals is long enough that a non-expert should be prepared to be wary of any paper only 1-2 years old, especially if it has novel implications counter to mainstream established science.</em>" It is far to early to determine what, if any, effect on our understanding this paper will have. Given the red flags I would bet it wont have much of an impact, but we don't know that yet.
What this paper definitely isn't is substantial debate. It may sow the seeds of debate, it may even lead to a paradigm shift, but as it stands now this is just one paper standing against a mountain of evidence to the contrary. The balance of evidence isn't in its favour.
As for demonstrating dissent in the scientific community, you are going to have to do better, one paper just doesn't cut it.
See all comments on this post here:
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2501#comments
To manage your subscriptions or to block all notifications from this site, click the link below:
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?wp-subscription-manager=1&email=bob%40cosy.com&key=cf28f344812041ce432d029d7cbe9ca5